[1] Whether an act under the organization law that affects the status of individuals within a religious organization is subject to judicial review (affirmative with qualification)

[2] Requirements to determine that various resolutions or dispositions that affect individuals' status within a religious organization are void as a matter of course

[3] The case holding that even though there is a defect in the convening procedure of the collective council for a new resolution on the pastors and the generals of the church, the non-Confidence resolution on the armed riot at the joint council cannot be deemed as null and void as a matter of course on the grounds that the defect is not a serious defect to the extent that it is not acceptable in light of the concept of justice

[4] The case holding that convening and presiding over the party council and the joint council for the hearing of a succeeding pastor belongs to the scope of the duty of a retired pastor who continues to perform the duties of the chairman of the party council pursuant to Article 691 of the Civil Code

[1] Unless it is an internal regulation of a religious organization that takes disciplinary action or sanctions against a person who commits misconduct as a member of the teaching organization by religious means, it is an act under the organization law that affects the status of individuals enjoying within the religious organization, and it does not necessarily mean to exclude him/her from judicial review or to deny the benefit of lawsuit

[2] In light of the fact that the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion and strictly separates religion and state function, the organization and operation of a religious organization shall be guaranteed autonomy to the maximum extent possible. Thus, in order to determine that various resolutions or dispositions that affect individuals' status within a church are null and void abrupt, it is insufficient to say that there are procedural defects in the degree that such resolutions or dispositions by a general non- religious organization are null and void abruptive, and if such defects are so serious that they are left against the concept of justice.

[3] The case holding that even though there is a defect in the convening procedure of the collective council for a new resolution on the pastors and the generals of the church, the non-Confidence resolution on the armed riot at the joint council cannot be deemed as null and void as a matter of course on the grounds that the defect is not a serious defect to the extent that it is not acceptable in light of the concept of justice

[4] The case holding that convening and presiding over the party council and the joint council for the hearing of a succeeding pastor belongs to the scope of the duty of a retired pastor who continues to perform the duties of the chairman of the party council pursuant to Article 691 of the Civil Code

[1] Article 248 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act / [3] Article 250 of the Civil Act / [4] Article 691 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff 1 and eight others (Attorneys Yang Young-tae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant church (Attorney Choi Young-young, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 2003Na4692 delivered on October 24, 2003

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

1. Facts acknowledged by the court below

The court below acknowledged the following facts by taking full account of the adopted evidence.

A. The defendant church is a church belonging to the Korean Egymnasium general meeting. From September 2000, the above general meeting appears to have been divided into the Nomnasium general meeting, the Sungdong general meeting, and the Hongdong general meeting, and the defendant church opened a church meeting around October of the same year and passed a resolution to leave the church without joining any place among the divided general meetings.

B. The plaintiffs are the persons who have been in charge of the administrative affairs of the defendant church. According to the above religious order's constitution, the defendant church is an administrative member of the defendant church and the representatives of the whole members, who are members of the church, who are members of the church, who are members of the church with the pastors, and are members of the church which are members of the church. The church determines the membership and retirement of the members, serves as the head of the church and the head of the church as the members of the church. The church determines the membership and retirement of the members, operates the church and the head of the church, supervises each organization of the church, supervises the members of the church, and supervises the members and the members of the church, and supervises the members of the church, and is composed of 17 members in charge of the religious affairs and one member of the chairman of the church. According to the above religious order's constitution, when there is a petition with the members of the church or the members of the church or at least 1/3 of the members of the church, it can be defined as a joint voting for new members.

C. On the other hand, the defendant church, as the president of the church, continued to hold out the non-party 1's retirement problem, and know-how and reflect on the operation of the church among the non-party 1 and the plaintiffs who were armed forces, who were scheduled to meet the retirement age on December 15, 2001. However, on January 8, 2001, the defendant church held that in order to resolve the above situation of the church on January 8, 2001, it is inevitable to ask at the joint council that it is the faith of the pastor and the head of the church, at the joint council about 14 and the head of the house office, and signed at 951 out of about 1,50 persons who were the three times of the five hundred and five hundred persons, and on February 7, 2001, the new voting system should be prepared every five years, and the head of the church and the head of the Dong shall present a new voting proposal to the new head of the church on January 27, 2001.

D. Accordingly, the defendant church held a church meeting on August 5, 2001, and asked that it is new within the year after the proposal was made by the seven committee. The new voting cases on the pastors and the funerals are likely to be implemented by the resolution of the party council at the level of the party council (hereinafter referred to as the "resolution of the party council on August 5, 2001"), and announced the contents of the above resolution at the seat of the defendant church on August 19 of the same year and September 16 of the same year.

E. Since then, on November 4, 2001, the members of the defendant church held a church conference to determine the time when the new voting is held (hereinafter referred to as the "Council of November 4, 2001"). The result of the voting, the plaintiffs 9 argued that the plaintiffs should be held on December 30, 201, and the non-party 1 and the remaining eight shall be held on November 25, 2001, and the two proposals were rejected. Accordingly, the non-party 1 of the party council chairperson promulgated that the new voting is held on November 25, 2001 when the number of votes is the same, but the plaintiffs should be dismissed, while the plaintiffs raised an application for waiver of the voting, suspension of appointment and appointment of the chairman of the party council and execution of their duties as a proxy, and the new voting is held on December 15, 201.

F. In response to the plaintiffs, when the collective voting on the posts and the posts of the defendant church could not be carried out, on December 9, 2001, the board of directors of the defendant church decided that "the members of the defendant church shall delegate to the non-party 1 at the time of the opening of a joint council meeting for the new election to the head of the defendant church." The non-party 1 advertised that the non-party 1 arbitrarily opened the collective council on December 23, 2001 on the bulletin of the defendant church on December 30, 2001 without the resolution of the party council and advertised to hold the new voting on the pastors and the posts, and on December 30, 201, in accordance with the above advertisement, the collective council for the execution of the new voting on the pastors and the posts (hereinafter referred to as the "joint council of December 30, 201") was held, and the majority of the plaintiffs were not able to vote for non-Confidence by a majority of the members.

G. When Nonparty 1 was no longer able to conduct the duties at the Defendant church, Nonparty 1 decided to hold a church conference for the reception of delegated pastors pursuant to the church constitution, and on March 13, 2002, Nonparty 1 issued a notice of convening a church conference to seven of the remaining pages except the Plaintiffs, who were non-Confidenced in accordance with the joint council resolution of December 30, 201, and retired Nonparty 2, who became retirement age at the same time, and were retired Nonparty 2, at the above church conference, and decided to leave Nonparty 3 as the delegate pastor of the Defendant church, and to convene a joint council on March 31, 2002.

H. On March 24, 2002, the non-party 1 publicly announced on the bulletin of the defendant church that "the non-party 1 decided to convene on March 31, 2002 the joint council to invite the non-party 3's pastor as the delegate pastor of the defendant church" and according to the above public notice, the non-party 1 held a joint council to invite the pastors (hereinafter referred to as the "joint council of March 31, 2002"), and the above joint council passed a resolution to invite the non-party 3 as the new delegate pastor of the defendant church, with the consent of not less than 2/3 of the three regular delegates present at the above joint council of 993, and with the consent of not less than 695 members present at the above joint council.

I. On February 9, 2003, after the non-party 3 started the duties as the delegated pastor of the defendant church, the council members held except the plaintiffs on February 9, 2003 passed a resolution to convene a joint council for the election of the new president on the 23th of the same month. The non-party 3 announced it on the Jeju newsletter on the 16th of the same month, and held a joint council (hereinafter referred to as the "joint council of February 23, 2003"). The above joint council decided to appoint 15 persons, including the non-party 4, as the head of the defendant church.

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

According to the records, although the plaintiffs and some of their members from time to time make a worship and donation separate from the religious life in the defendant church, this is merely an expression of a temporary conflict inside the church, and it is difficult to view that the defendant church has reached the status of dividing it into two churches.

Therefore, we cannot accept the defendant's principal safety defense, that is, the plaintiffs' assertion in the grounds of appeal that there is no interest in confirmation of the lawsuit of this case under the premise that the plaintiffs separated from their religious order with the defendant church.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The judgment of the court below

(1) The court below held that the lawsuit of this case is related to the dispute inside of the defendant church, but since the contents of the dispute are different from the dispute in general civil organizations surrounding the resolution rather than to establish the internal doctrine of the defendant church and maintain the order of religion, it shall be subject to judicial review. As seen above, the defendant's defense against this point of view, namely, the defendant's safety defense, as long as the plaintiffs sought confirmation of invalidity of the resolution, has no legal interest in seeking confirmation of invalidity of the resolution, the defendant's joint interest in the procedure of judicial review cannot be viewed as the establishment of the plaintiff's right to dispute and its nature as a matter of law, since the defendant's joint interest in the procedure of judicial review is not related to the plaintiff's church's internal interest, and the defendant's joint interest in the procedure of judicial review is not related to the plaintiff's church's internal interest.

(2) The lower court determined that: (a) according to the Constitution of the Republic of Korea, the collective council of the Defendant church shall convene a meeting by a resolution of the above 10th regular meeting; (b) the absence of accurate timing for the new voting at the time of August 5, 201 may have a significant impact on the organization and operation of the Defendant church; and (c) the time for minimizing adverse effects on the management and operation of the Defendant church can be decided separately by the meeting; (d) the collective council of the above 10th regular meeting was held at the same time as that of the above 10th regular meeting; and (e) the collective council of the above 1st regular meeting of the 2nd regular meeting of the 1st regular meeting of the 10th regular meeting of the 1st regular meeting of the 2nd regular meeting of the 10th regular meeting of the 1st regular meeting of the 2nd regular meeting of the 2nd regular meeting of the 1st regular meeting of the 1st regular meeting of the 2nd regular meeting of the 1st regular meeting of the 2nd regular meeting.

B. Judgment of the Supreme Court

(1) The case is basically a dispute over the status of the plaintiffs who want to enjoy from the defendant church, i.e., the position of the church, which is an administrative branch church, and so long as the administrative branch church is an executive member of the church, it is difficult to view such status as unrelated to the religious identity of the church, and it is also irrelevant to the doctrine of religion or the religious religion. However, if the dispute over the inside of the church is outside the limits of the judicial authority or if it is deemed that there is lack of the interests of the church, it is difficult to reject the lawsuit within the premise of the claim for specific rights and duties. In this case, it is difficult to say that there is no need to resolve the dispute over the specific rights and duties of the church, and that it is difficult to say that there is no reason to view that there is a significant difference between the right to dispute over the status of the church, which is an administrative branch of the religious organization, and that there is no reason to see that there is no reason to view that there is no difference in the position of the church itself within the boundary of the church.

(2) On the other hand, in light of the fact that the Constitution guarantees the freedom of religion and strictly separates religion and state functions, the organization and operation of a religious organization shall be guaranteed autonomy to the maximum extent. Therefore, in order to determine that various resolutions or dispositions that affect individuals' status within the church are null and void abrupt, it is insufficient to say that there are procedural defects in the degree that the resolution or disposition of a general organization that is not the general religious organization is null and void, and if such defects are so serious that they are left against the concept of justice.

(A) As long as it is difficult to see that Nonparty 1, who convened a joint council of December 30, 201, reached 70 years of age on the 15th day of the same month, and that there is no custom that requires the conclusion of a pastor to the defendant church by the last day of the year when he reaches the retirement age, Nonparty 1 had already reached the retirement age and lost the authority as the head of the party church. However, according to the records, the members of the defendant church, among the members of the party church, were absent until the end of the year when they reach the retirement age (the non-party 5, the witness of the first instance court, was aware of the fact that the non-party 1 et al., who actually reached the retirement age of 70 years of age, and there is no reason to view that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2, who was the head of the party branch of the defendant church, retired from the office of execution of his duties as the chairperson of the party 1 and the non-party 1 and the defendant 2 (the non-party 1).

(B) On December 30, 201, a joint vote meeting held without a resolution of the political party necessary to convene the meeting. However, at the meeting on August 5, 2001, a resolution of 201 to implement a new vote for all members of the 2nd meeting was passed by unanimous consent, and at the meeting on August 5, 2001, at the open meeting on December 30 of the same year, the plaintiffs asserted that the new vote should be held on December 30 of the same year, and at the meeting on December 10 of the same year, the number of new votes should be held on the 10th anniversary of the total number of new votes, and the number of new votes should be held on November 25 of the same year, and the number of new votes should be held within the 10th anniversary of the total number of new votes held by the plaintiffs. According to the records, it is difficult to conclude that the new votes should be held within the 10th anniversary of the total number of new votes held by the plaintiffs.

(C) According to the above, the joint council of December 30, 2001 of the defendant church convened by the non-party 1, who is a legitimate convening authority, and even though there is a defect that has not gone through the resolution of the party council, such defect cannot be deemed as serious enough to be acceptable in light of the concept of justice. Thus, the non-Confidence resolution of the plaintiffs, which was adopted at the joint council of March 13, 202, cannot be deemed as null and void as a matter of course. Accordingly, the resolution of the joint council of March 31, 2002, which was adopted by the above joint council of March 31, 2002, shall not be deemed null and void as a matter of course only because it was held without notifying the plaintiffs of the convocation of the above party council.

(D) At the time of convening the church conference on March 13, 2002 or the joint council conference on March 31, 2002, Nonparty 1 had already been in the status of the chairman of the church, but the delegated pastor is the chairman of the church and the representative of the church, and in the case of the defendant church, it was not possible to select the substitute chairman as a member of the church due to the division and Ban among the party members as well as the division among the party members. In light of the above, Nonparty 1 may continue to perform the affairs as the representative of the party council council after January 1, 2002 until the remaining chairman of the party council council is decided pursuant to Article 691 of the Civil Act, and in light of the fact that the retired pastor cannot be deemed to have continued to perform his duties as the temporary chairman of the party council and the joint council on March 31, 202, and in light of the fact that it is inappropriate for the temporary chairman of the party council to leave the church to the extent of his duties.

(3) Nevertheless, the court below held that the resolution of the Joint Council of December 30, 2001 and the resolution of the Joint Council of March 31, 2002 were null and void a year, under the false premise that all the resolution of March 31, 2002 are null and void a year, and also the resolution of the Joint Council of February 23, 2003 also deemed null and void a year. Such measures of the court below are erroneous in the misapprehension of the rules of evidence, by misunderstanding facts about the retirement age, etc. of the chairperson of the church of the defendant church, and by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the defect in the convocation procedure and the validity of the resolution of the Joint Council. The defendant pointed out this point of view, the argument

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Kim Hwang-sik (Presiding Justice)